ADDRESS MOVED. (Hansard, 19 July 1858)

§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
then rose to move the Address to Her Majesty of which he had given notice with respect to the special Church services of the 5th of November, the 30th of January, and the 29th of May. The noble Duke said that he must in the first place explain that it was not possible for him to have moved that Address as an Amendment upon that which had been proposed by the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) a few nights ago; because that was a Motion which, in his 1661 opinion, ought not to have been met otherwise than by a direct negative. As that Address, however, had been agreed to both by their Lordships and by the other House of Parliament, he thought it his duty now to propose an Address to Her Majesty, requesting that she would command that there should be substituted for the services in question, if they should be removed from the Prayer-book, some memorial of those great deliverances for which this nation ought to be so constantly grateful. The noble Earl who moved the Address on a former evening (Earl Stanhope) stated that these services rested solely on the authority of a Royal Proclamation, and with singular inconsistency he asked their Lordships to pray Her Majesty to invalidate her own authority. Another argument urged against them was that they had not been sanctioned by Convocation. This was very delicate ground to touch upon. No one could be more disposed to pay all due respect to Convocation than he was; but he could not admit that a service which had the authority of a Royal Proclamation, ought to be disregarded, simply because it had not the sanction of Convocation. A further argument urged was, that expressions were used in these services entirely unsuited to the present time; and in the justice of that argument be was inclined to some extent to agree. But the great difference between the times in which these services were instituted and our own ought to be borne in mind. The most objectionable parts of these services depended on the florid, high-flown personal references contained in them. Though the feeling of loyalty and attachment to the Throne was no less warm now than in those times, yet it was not our habit to use such high-flown expressions of adulation in respect to the person of the Sovereign as were common then, and it would be found on examination that it was in that particular that these services were most objectionable to the public taste of the day. He did not desire that these objectionable parts should be retained, but simply that the recollection of the great events in our national history and the great deliverances which God had vouchsafed to this country should be kept alive. Even if the services themselves were expunged, some memorial ought to be retained in the liturgy of the Church of the events therein commemorated. The Acts of Parliament on which these services rested had not yet been re- 1662 pealed, and so long as that was the case there was an inconsistency in sending up Addresses to the Crown, requesting it to do an act which would be in direct contradiction of those Acts. The events of those days were intimately associated with the national prosperity, and he could not conceive that, in asking their Lordships to agree to an Address to have them commemorated, he was asking their assent to anything which was not acceptable to them. It was perfectly true that a long period had elapsed since that great wickedness of the 5th of November was about to be perpetrated, but he was sure there were thousands of hearts which, when the memory of those events returned, swelled with thankfulness at the deliverance of the country from ruin and desolation. It might be true that some of the phrases in the services which now appeared in the Book of Common Prayer were not in accordance with the feelings of the present day. Let those phrases be expunged, bat let them not be ashamed of confessing the national dependence on the Providence of God. He proposed that in the only service which his noble Friend (Earl Stanhope) had spared—relating to the Accession of Her Majesty—some allusion should be made to those events which, by a wonderful co-operation had led to the present occupancy of a Protestant and constitutional Throne. The noble Duke concluded by moving— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty, if it should be Her pleasure that the Services of the 5th November, the 30th January, and the 29th May should no longer be annexed to the Book of Common Prayer, in accordance with the Address of the House of Lords, to direct that there be hereafter inserted in the Form of Prayer and Thanksgiving appointed for the 20th day of June, being the day on which Her Majesty began Her happy Reign, such Form of Thanksgiving, as Her Majesty may see fit, for the great Deliverances which by the mercy of God have been vouchsafed to this Nation—namely: The Rescue of the Estates of Parliament from the Conspiracy of the 5th November, 1605; and, The Restoration of the Church and Monarchy in 1660; and The Deliverance from Papal Subjection and arbitrary Power through the Landing of King William III. in 1688: Of which several events the Nation is still enjoying the blessings in the security of Her Majesty's Throne.

§ EARL STANHOPE
said, he had hoped that this question had been disposed of three weeks ago, and he questioned whether, in making this Motion the noble Duke was recommending a course consonant with 1663 that sincere desire for the welfare of the Church by which he was known to be animated. He was charged with inconsistency, because he had not upon a recent occasion proposed to repeal the Acts of Parliament upon which the Royal Proclamation issued for these special services. But the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Oxford thought the notion of an Address to the Crown preferable, and if the Royal Proclamation were withdrawn the object would be accomplished, because the Act would then be a dead letter. It was true that the noble Earl representing the Government (the Earl of Malmesbury) said he should have preferred a repeal of the Act, but he assigned as the reason because the other House would then have concurred; and since that time the other House had concurred by unanimously adopting an Address to the Crown identical with that which, at his instance, had been adopted by their Lordships. He entirely dissented from the Motion of the noble Duke, which he looked upon as a retrograde movement, and he should feel it his duty to divide the House against it if it was not withdrawn.

VISCOUNT DUNGANNON
said, he felt deeply indebted to the noble Duke for proposing his Motion. No lapse of time ought to prevent this nation from cherishing gratitude to God for the signal blessings which He had conferred upon this country at various periods of its history, and the gracious interpositions by which he had saved it from impending ruin; and no time could be more appropriate for their commemoration than the time when we were commemorating the Accession of our most gracious Sovereign to the throne. A total oblivion of the signal mercies of Divine Providence would fill his mind with alarm. Such things ought to be kept fresh in the recollection of the people, and nothing would tend more to the overthrow of this nation than forgetfulness of the mercies which it had received at the hands of Providence. Let them once forget such events as were referred to in the noble Duke's Motion, and from that moment their sun would set.

§ LORD EBURY
said, he hoped that if this Motion were carried the Government would do something more than advise Her Majesty to recall the Proclamation in virtue of which these services were read—namely, bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of Parliament on which that Proclamation was based. So long as these Acts remained unrepealed a court of law might enforce 1664 their performance. He had no objection to a short collect being added to the service for the Accession of the Queen, with a view to commemorate the events now celebrated in these services.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
said, that although his noble Friend (Viscount Dungannon) had stated that these services were enjoined by Act of Parliament, it would have been more correct to say that the observance of the days was ordered by Act of Parliament, and that during several reigns the use of these forms was enjoined by Royal proclamation; for the Acts said nothing about these services, which were prepared afterwards. The more advisable course in regard to these forms of prayer would have been, not to address the Crown to direct that they should be omitted from the Liturgy, but to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of Parliament enjoining the observance of these days. Parliament, however, had adopted a different view; and the opinion of both Houses of Parliament having been made known to Her Majesty, She would, no doubt, see fit to direct that a course should be taken in accordance with the wishes of Parliament. The Motion of the noble Duke appeared to him to rescind the previous Resolution for an Address to the Crown; and for the same reason that he had voted for the Resolution, he should vote against the present Motion, if it were pressed to a division. The events commemorated in these services were undoubtedly very important occurrences in the history of this country, and afforded great cause for thankfulness; yet it was not pretended that every great blessing and every signal deliverance in our history either was or ought to be commemorated by a special service. He did not remember a greater peril or a more signal deliverance than that from the Spanish Armada; and if special services were to be kept up, he did not see why we should not return thanks for the discomfiture of the Spanish Armada. Then, again, the Reformation exercised a most important influence upon the character and constitution of this country, yet it was not thought necessary to celebrate it by a special thanksgiving. He thought the time had come for the discontinuance of these services, and he did not think it would be advisable to incorporate a portion of them into another service to which no objection was taken.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON
said, that it was, no doubt, a mistake to suppose that 1665 these particular services were enjoined by Act of Parliament. The days were commanded to be observed by Act of Parliament, but the services themselves rested upon a Royal Proclamation; and that being withdrawn, the services would be also withdrawn. With regard to the service of the Fifth of November, he entertained a strong conviction that thanksgivings for Her Majesty's accession ought not to be mixed up with anything calculated to embitter our feelings towards our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. His great objection to the service for the Fifth of November was, that it involved the whole Roman Catholic body in an act which was not theirs, but the act of certain conspirators. He need not remind their Lordships that the battle of Inkerman was fought on the 5th of November; and it would be most undesirable, while thanking God for Her Majesty's auspicious reign, to revive feelings of bitterness towards Her Roman Catholic subjects.

§ THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH
said, that he regretted the opposition of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) to his Motion, but he would not divide the House.